many other duties, employee recruitment and retention and for managing federal benefit and retirement programs. we all expect federal agencies and departments to function effectively and efficiently for our constituents. as someone who ran a nonprofit in colorado for 10 years, i know the importance of maintaining a talented and motivated work force. strong work force management leads directly to better work and better service and better outcomes. which is why it's so important to have someone leading o.p.m.m. who's awho's an advocate for fel employees and strong manager with high expectations. that's again why i stand here this morning. i believe katherine will be this type of leader. she has years of high-level management experience. she's sharp. she's hardworking and she's dedicated to the goal of making government work as effectively and efficiently as possible. she has an impressive resume, as i noted at her hearing when i had the opportunity to introduce her.

she has local and state level experience, serving senior roles in two denver mayoral administrations as well as extensive experience here in washington, serving as the chief of staff to former u.s. secretary of transportation federico pena in the 1990's and more recently to hilda solis. between her years of public service here in denver and also in washington, katherine consulted with charities, nonprofits, cities and regional governments and businesses to help them pursue workplace development and crisis management strategies. if you rook for a common thread, mr. president, throughout katherine's career, it's her capacity, her talent to work with individuals and organizations, identify priorities and then notably to create the conditions for successful implementation of these priorities. that's who we need at the helm

of o.p.m. it's what americans expect and demand. so as you look at katherine's career, she has demonstrated an ability to lead, to motivate and to work constructively with a diverse range of people and personalities. she is a true westerner. she has personal integrity. she has a strong sense of right and wrong. and she has obvious pride in the work that she does. that makes her a top-notch choice to lead our federal work force. so, mr. president, for all those reasons, i'm honored to speak in support of katherine archuleta's nomination and her confirmation we hope today and i hope that we will act quickly to confirm her nomination. she is eminently qualified for this position and she deserves an up-or-down vote as soon as possible. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. the presiding officer: all time has expired. the question is on the estevez nomination. all in favor say aye.

all opposed say no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the nomination is confirmed. under the previous order, the clerk will report the motion to invoke cloture. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate hereby move to bring to a close the debate on the nomination of katherine archuleta of colorado to be director of the office of personnel management, signed by 17 senators. the presiding officer: by unanimous consent, the mandatory quorum call has been waived. the question is is it the sense of the senate that debate on the nomination of katherine archuleta of colorado to be director of the office of personnel management shall be brought to a close. the yeas and nays are mandatory under the rule. the clerk will call the roll.

vote:

vote:

the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to vote or change their vote? on this vote, the yeas are 81, the nays are 18. three-fifths of the senators dual chosen and sworn having voted in the affirmative, the motion is agreed to.

the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: office of personnel management, katherine archuleta of colorado to be director. the presiding officer: pursuant to the provisions of s. res. 15 of the 113th congress, there will now be up to eight hours of postcloture consideration of the nomination equally divided in the usual form. mr. vitter: mr. president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise -- the presiding officer: the senate will be in order. mr. vitter: thank you, mr. president. mr. president, i rise to speak on this nomination and to oppose it because of the recent actions of the office of personnel management with regard to the washington exemption from obamacare. i voted just now against cloture on the nomination and i will vote against the nomination

itself later today because of these very, very serious matters. o.p.m., the office to which this nominee is nominated and which she would head, has issued an illegal rule that is very offensive, flies in the face of the obamacare statute language itself. and this nominee has pledged to continue to enforce that illegal rule and illegal policy. furthermore, o.p.m. has completely stonewalled members, including myself, my colleague, senator heller, others regarding how they came to that decision and, importantly, who they talk with, who they e-mailed with, who they met with in coming to that decision to create this illegal washington exemption. mr. president, let me back up a little bit and explain exactly what we're talking about. and, really, this story starts

several years ago in the obamacare debate. during the original debate on the obamacare statute, several conservatives, including myself, pushed an amendment that said, every member of congress, all of our official congressional staff have to use the same fallback plan as is there for all other americans. originally it was called the public option. then it became known as the exchanges. no special rules, no special treatment, no special subsidy. and, in fact, that's one of the very few battles in that debate we won because that provision was adopted during the consideration of the obamacare statute, it was adopted right here in the senate. and so in the statutory language as it finally passed into law is that section and that section says very clearly every member

of congress and all of our official congressional staff have to go to the obamacare exchanges for our health care. the same fallback plan as is there for all other americans. no special rules or privileges or subsidies or exemptions. we go there. well, mr. president, i guess this became an example of what nancy pelosi was talking about when we -- whether she famously said -- when she famously said, we have to pass the law in order to figure out what's in it. because the law did pass, it had that specific statutory provision, and then people on capitol hill started reading to that the law and they came to that section and a lot of them said, oh, you know what. we can't live with this. we can't have this. we can't be pushed to the same fallback plan as all other americans. we can't stand for this. and so from that moment on, a

furious lobbying campaign and scheming behind the scenes started to avoid that provision fully going into effect, to avoid the pain of that provisi provision, the pain of obamacare that millions of other americans are falsely a facing as we spea. meetings hebz, leadership meetings happened, member meetings happened, furious scheming behind the scenes, and a lot of lobbying. and ultimately that lobbying of the obama administration paid off, because in early august of this year, right after congress got out of town for the august recess, conveniently right after congress left the scene of the crime, the obama administration issued a special rule with no basis in the law, in my opinion, no basis in the obamacare statute. and this special rule is a special exemption for congress, a carveout to take all of the

financial sting out of that obamacare section. and what this special o.p.m. rule is -- and, again, o.p.m., the office of personnel management, was the agency that came up with this illegal rule after this furious lobbying, after president obama became personally involved, literally personally participated in the discussions leading to this rule -- what this illegal rule does is essentially two things. first of all, the rule says, well, official congressional staff. we don't know who that is. we can't possibly determine who official congressional staff is so we're going to leave it up to each individual member of congress to figure out who their official staff are. well, mr. president, i would submit that that is just ludicrous on its face.

congressional staff are congressional staff. official staff are anyone who works for us through the institution of congress versus outside entities at institutions like our campaign staff. and so leaving it up to every individual member of congress is contrary to the statute on its face. it's outrageous on its face. but under this o.p.m. rule, that's exactly what they do. so an individual member of congress can say, well, these 10 people aren't official staff. they're on my staff but for some magical reason, they're not official for purposes of this mandate. in fact, under this rule, a member can say nobody on my congressional staff is official staff for purposes of this mandate. and we see members doing that as we speak. we see examples of that being reported in the press as we

speak, members deciding, well, nobody is official staff. i don't have official staff because it will mean they have to go to the obamacare exchange and live by the same rules, through the same experience as other americans. that's flat-out ridiculous. but that's not the only thing the o.p.m. rule did, mr. president. it did a second thing which is perhaps even more outrageous of it said members of congress and staff who do go to the exchange, they get to take along with them a huge taxpayer-funded subsidy that no other american at similar income levels has, enjoys going to the obamacare exchanges. this is a huge subsidy worth at least $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 or $11,000 for families. and, again, no other american at

similar income levels is privy to that sort of subsidy. now, again, mr. president, i think this part of the o.p.m. rule is flat-out illegal. it is not in the obamacare statute. there was discussion of it. there were drafts that allowed that to happen. but the language that was put in the law did not include that subsidy. it was specifically left out. and, in fact, magically transforming what was under previous law federal employee health benefit plan subsidy magically transforming that into some obamacare exchange subsidy, that's contrary to law, that's beyond o.p.m. and the administration's legal authori authority. but they just did it because they could to bail out washington, to bail out congress. well, this is outrageous and it's illegal. as soon as i heard of this proposed rule in early august,

mr. president, i joined with many colleagues, house and senate, and i appreciate all of their leadership, and i'm joined by many colleagues in the senate who i specifically want to acknowledge who are fighting for this change. senators enzi and heller and lee, johnson, inhofe, cruz, and graham. we're also joined by house members, led by representative ron desantos of florida. and all of us quickly got together and said, this is illegal and this is wrong and we have to stop it. and so we came up with language to do just that, to reverse this illegal o.p.m. rule and to make sure that every member of congress and all of our congressional staff go to the obamacare exchanges and we go there just like other americans go there, no special exemption or special subsidy or special

treatment. now, our fix also expands that to the president, the vice president, their white house staff and all of their political appointees. because that is appropriate as well. and so our language says to all those folks, congress and the administration, you have to get your health care the same way other americans are, in the backup plan, in the fallback plan, in the so-called exchanges. you go to the exchanges and you get no special treatment, no special exemption, no special subsidy. i think this is really, really important for two reasons. first of all, basic fairness. it should be the first rule of american democracy that what washington passes on america, it lives with itself. washington should have to eat its own cooking. you know, it's like going to a restaurant and hearing that the chef in the kitchen never eats

there. something's wrong with that restaurant. something's wrong with that picture. and something's wrong with washington -- when washington exempts itself over and over and over again from eating its own cooking. the second reason this is important is a very practical one, because the sooner we demand that washington live by exactly the same rules it imposes on america, the sooner washington will start getting things right. on obamacare, on taxes, on regulation, across the board. and so for that very practical reason, we need to make sure that the same rules apply to washington the same way they apply to the rest of america. now, let me come back to o.p.m., because what we're debating here is the nominee to head the office of personnel management, o.p.m., the bureaucracy that came up with this illegal rule.

that nominee has pledged to continue to enforce that illegal rule, to continue to defend that illegal rule. also, o.p.m. to date has been completely unresponsive, stonewalling is the more appropriate term, all of my and other members' inquiries about the process they used to come up with this illegal rule. i've written o.p.m. several times. i wrote them immediately after their draft rule was issued. i wrote them very soon after their final rule was issued. and i specifically wrote them demanding all e-mails and other correspondence and other documentation and information that they had from members of congress, from leadership, from the administration with regard to the work and discussion that went into their rule. other colleagues of ours here in the senate and also in the house have done the same thing.

my distinguished colleague from nevada, dean heller, talked to the then-o.p.m. director face-to-face. he asked the o.p.m. director, did you speak with, were you lobed by members of congress or administration about this rule? and that director said, no, absolutely not. it now turns out that that apparently is a lie. according to other sources, there were absolutely discussions, communications, e-mails and the like between congressional leadership and the administration and o.p.m. so dean heller was lied to face-to-face about this by o.p.m. i've asked for all of the e-mails, all of the correspondence, all of the discussions that happened leading up to this rule involving members of congress, leadership, and also the president and the vice president and members of their administration.

that request for information has been completely stonewalled. so first o.p.m. caves to intense lobbying from washington insiders. second, it caves and issues an illegal rule contrary to the statutory language of obamacare. and third, it stone wall stonews regarding the process and conversations and e-mails that led to that illegal rule. mr. president, we just can't stand for that and that's precisely why i'm opposing this o.p.m. nomination, why i voted "no" on cloture, why i will vote "no" on the nomination. we ne -- we need answers. we need to reverse this illegal rule. and yes, we need a vote on the vitter amendment that the distinguished majority leader and others have blocked out for months now. we need that vote.

we need that vote that has been actively blocked out by the majority leader for months. let's do things right. let's get that information from o.p.m. let's reverse this illegal rule. let's vote on this important matter. thank you, mr. president. with that, i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

quorum call:

a senator: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from minnesota. ms. klobuchar: madam president, i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. klobuchar: madam president, this afternoon, the 2013 farm bill conference committee will finally convene for the first time, bringing us one step closer to finishing the farm bill. i know you, i know that madam president being the senator from wisconsin understands how important this is to our country's future, and certainly the farmers and businesses and the families in minnesota understand how important this bill is. we have waited a long time to go to this conference committee. the senate, as you know, has passed two farm bills now that really continue the strong policies of the last farm bill, but in fact save $24 billion, reduce the debt by $24 billion over the farm bill that is

currently in place. i am part of the group that negotiated the details of the bill to help finish the process that started over two years ago. before i go on about the details of this senate bill, i would like to thank chairman stabenow for her incredible leadership and perseverance in getting us to this point that has been so long awaited. under chairman stabenow's leadership, the senate agriculture committee put together a farm bill that strengthens the safety net for our nation's farmers and ranchers, warms and streamlines our agriculture and conservation and nutrition programs while still keeping them strong and as i mentioned reducing $24 billion from the nation's debt. throughout the process, we faced unprecedented challenges and delay. we have the lack of a dance partner over in the house, but then of course we have the traditional issues -- regional disputes about how certain crops

and commodities should be handled, some few partisan issues here and there, but somehow we were able to come together to the point where the senate bill was supported by 68 senators, madam president, including 18 republicans. i believe that this is a testament to the open process we had, the endless amendments that we voted on on the floor, as well as a strong committee that was brought together to work on this bill. no matter where i go in my state, and i'm sure you have seen this in wisconsin, i am always reminded of the critical role that agriculture plays in our economy. minnesota is number one in turkey, something we think of a lot as we head into the thanksgiving season. we are number one in sweet corn, number one in green peas and oats. we are number two in hogs. i don't think people would think about that with our state, but we have surpassed some other states and are number two in hogs and spring sweet.

we're number two in soybeans and number four in corn. but we don't just grow the crops and raise the livestock. we are also home to a number of major agricultural companies which have kept our economy strong and is one of the reasons that our unemployment rate is down to 5.1% in minnesota. these companies include hormel, cargill and land of lakes. that's why one of the first things i did when i came to the senate was ask to be on the agriculture committee. i am honored to serve on this conference committee and to team up with my friend and house colleague, house member colin peterson who will be leading the democratic side in the house as well as congressman tim walls who represents the southern part of our state. the expiration of the current farm bill on september 30 is hurting our agricultural economy and is creating a huge amount of uncertainty for our farmers and for our consumers. last week, i visited with

minnesotans from across the state that want congress to pass a farm bill. i was in keester, minnesota, where i got to ride in a combine and got to see the good work of our farmers as they harvested the corn. and i have to tell you, madam president, that sitting in that combine after the three weeks of the shutdown, it was actually quite rewarding as i saw firsthand you can actually get results very quickly in a combine which i hope will happen in congress as we move ahead. from farmers in redwood county to the red river valley to volunteers at a food bank in minneapolis where we also had a joint event with hunger groups, conservation groups including pheasants forever, which is based in minnesota, and the farm bureau and the farmers union, we all came together to say we had to get this done. i journeyed up to the morehead area and joined senator hoeven in fargo. we like to call it morehead

fargo in minnesota. two towns joined by a river -- divided by a river but joined by common interests. we met about the importance of sugar beets, about importance of a farm bill for that region of the country. i have to tell you through my week, i quickly heard, which i'm sure you did in wisconsin, that the people of this country are sick and tired of gridlock politics. they are sick and tired of people standing in the opposite corner of the boxing ring and throwing punches. they are sick and tired of a red light, green light game that's been played with policy. it is time to come together and get this done. i am convinced in there is any silver lining or hope that came out of the chaos of last month, it is that the american people saw firsthand why we need change, why we need to work together, and that is why, in fact, senator hoeven and i came together across the river to make a very strong statement that we thought we had to get this bill done. as a member of the conference committee, i know that if we don't pass a new farm bill, farmers will not be able to sign

up for crop insurance, something that is so central to this new bill and is a great part of the $24 billion in debt reduction. they won't be able to sign up for a conservation program at a time when we need more conservation, when we see a decline in our pheasant population, where we are seeing the signs that we need to have strong conservation programs. we would also see a skyrocketing of dairy prices as we would be going back to the farm bill that was placed in 1949. as i like to say at home, we don't want to party like it's 1949, and we certainly don't want to farm like it's 1949. the failure to come together and to resolve the differences between the two bills now would likely result in either these 1949 prices or some kind of extension, and guess what? ask the farmers and ranchers about that in south dakota. they just saw a decimation to their cattle because of the sudden cold weather and blizzard

that they experienced in south dakota. this current bill that's in place does nothing to provide a safety net for them. that used to be in place but isn't is in place because of the fact that we haven't passed a permanent farm bill. it does nothing if we simply extended it about energy programs or about changes we need to see in the milk program or about reforms or the streamlining of our conservation programs. we simply can't afford to do that again. finally, it does nothing to reduce the debt if we simply extend the current program. farmers and ranchers don't want another extension like the one we saw last year that left out the programs that i just mentioned, the livestock disaster program, any significant deficit h. deficit reduction. i believe the senate bill that we're heading into this afternoon at the conference committee lays a strong foundation for an agreement that can be supported 0en a bipartisan basis and signe signn to law by the president. over the weekend i got a call from greg schwartz who works

with the minnesota corn growers. he actually called me while driving his combine and his words offer some perspectives. they were passed on to me as to where w we've been and where we need to go. he said, we have been working on this farm bill for over two years ago and just want to get it done. farmers are working around the clock on this year's harvest. and if you don't hear from us, i.t. not because we don't care. i.tit's because we have work to. members of the farm bill conference committee have our work to do as well. i believe that washington should strive to be more like the farmers and ranchers we represent who work until they get the job done. they can't just leave a bunch of corn or soybeans in the field because they get sick of it or they don't like their neighbor. they have to finish the job. if it starts getting cold out or if it is raining, they have to bring the harvest in before there is a blizzard. that's what they do and that's

what we need to do. we have a time deadline here, an important reason to get moving on this bill. i'd like to raise some areas of the senate bill that i believe need to be spreerved as part of the final agreement in near as possible to the way they are right now. i recognize there will be some compromise, but i think whatever compromise needs to work out should be closer to the bipartisan senate bill that, as we know, had 14 senate republicans supporting the bill, including senators in my part of the country, like senator grassley and senator hoeven. i know that important dinkses nied to be worked out in the area of nutrition. i think we can do that. but again i think given what we're seeing in terms of the cuts that we saw over in the house side, we have to get them much closer to where we are in the senate bill, which is something that will keep a safety net not just for our farmers and conservation and wildlife but also for the people of this country. madam president, i believe the people who grow our food deserve

to know that their livelihoods can't be swept away in the blink of an eye, either by market failures or by natural disasters. that's why in the senate farm bill the foundation of the safety net is a strengthened crop insurance program. we made the program work better for underserved commodities and specialty crops. in recognition of the importance of crop insurance, we extended conservation compliance rules to this program to ensure that all producers benefiting from this safety net play by the same set of rules and keep our water clean and soil productive for future generations. this the agreement has the support of agriculture, environment and wildlife leers, clurincluding the national corn growers swrls the environmental defense fund and ducks unlimited. that's quite a crew. the senate bill pulls back on crop insurance subsidies for the wealthiest while ensuring that everyone can still participate in the program, keeping the risk

pool strong. we also eliminated direct payments and further focused commodity entitlement programs on our family farmers by strengthening payment limits and rules that ensure that farmers and not urban millionaires are eligible for farm payments. we continued the successful sugar program, funded the livestock disaster programs, which i mentioned earlier, and put in place you a in safety net for dairyer producers to address the wild volatility in that market. no one knows that better than the state of which is, which the home of a lot of cheese, a lot of cows and a lot of dairy. we streamlined conservation programs from 23 to 13, specifically i worked with collin peterson to ensure that local communities like those in the red river valley have the tools that they need to address conservation challenges like flooding. the bill funds energy title programs to expand homegrown renewable energy production. when you look at yo our reductin

anin dependence on foreign oil from 60 per to 40%, in just the last few years -- you look at the increased drilling and natural gas, but you also look at biofuels, which are now 10% of our nation's fuel splievmen . these bills ensure that we are working to support our farmers and workers in the midwest and not the oil cartels in the middle east. that's why i strongly support mandatory funding for the energy pillet title to help provide incentives for homegrown energy production from the next general reagan administration of biofuels to blender pufns. this is a vital industry in stated like mine supporting millions of jobs and millions of dollars in economic growth. i appreciate the support of senator franklin as many of us understand that you want an

all-of-the-above energy approa approach. the senate bill ensthiewrs our energy innovators have the certainty and stability they need to he will have the next generation of american energy. the senate bill also includes a number of initiatives for beginning farmers and ranchers including two of my provisions. the first i introduced with senator baucus which would reduce the crop insurance costs for beginning farmers by 10%. my second provision that i introduced with senators johanns, baucus and hoeven would allow beginning producers to use conservation reserve program acres for grazing without a penalty. i believe they will go a long way in building the next generation of farmers. both of these provisions should be included in the final bill. i believe that if we want to recruit a new generation of farmers and ranchers, we must take further action to improve the quality of life in our small towns and our rural areas.

that's why i worked with senators hoeven and heitkamp and i led the amendment to provide additional resources for critical priorities in the farm bill, including research, something the madam president knows something about from the university of wisconsin, as well as rural development, conservation, and energy. our provision funds the new nonprofit foundation, the foundation for food and agricultural research, to leverage private funding with the federal match to support agricultural research. it provides additional funds to address the $3.2 billion backlog of water and waste water projects in rural america. you can't go to are a region of any state in rural america without hearing about this backlog of rural waste water and water projects and this amendment that we passed helps with that. it also increases funding for regional approach to conservation to address a variety of challenges including the flooding that we saw in the

red river value lymph the provision also add an additional $1 radio million to the energy title to help farmers, ranchers, and rural businesses produce homegrown energy. i was pleased to get the strong support of our committee for that amendment, and i am pleased that's included in the final senate bill. in the senate we also preerve ised the essential -- preserved the essential nutrition programs that millions rely on. in recent years programs like the supplemental nutritional assistance program also known as snap have become especially important as hardworking families and seniors who are suddenly cash strapped but in need of growsries. one of my predecessors -- i have his desk -- vice president hubert humphrey, was an early champion of the food stamp program now known as snap. as one of the farmers -- founders -- humphrey of one of the founders of the democratic

farmer labor party in minnesota, heed i do not the importance of a stable government program for both agricultural producers as well as farmers struggling to put food on the table and that is why we've always seen this combination of these programs. it makes sense. food comes from farms. food is a safety net for the people of this country, just as the farm provisions which are actually a minority of the provisions in this bill, that the farm provisions provide a safety net for those that provide food. and what we've done with this bill, of course is being reduce some costs mandate it more efficient but still kept a strong safety net. for more than 40 years we've linked together food and farm policy in five-year farm bills. nearly 72% of snap participants are farmers with children and more than one-quarter of participants are in households with seniors or people with disabilities. this is not the time to make the deep cuts, as proposed in the house, that provide to -- to

programs that provide important new trieciousal support for working families, low-income seniors and people with disabilities with fixed income. yet what we've seen with those cuts that we'll be discussing on the house side includes 170,000 veterans who would be cut off from food assistance if the house bill were to pass. the senate bill makes reforms that i believe were necessary that brings the debt down by $4 billion, reforms that were necessary. so phit is not like there were o reforms in the senate bill. 68 senators voted for this bipartisan bill, including 14 republicans. the cuts proposed by the house are in addition to the $11 billion cuts to the program that will go into place friday when the american reinvestment recovery act supplemental nutrition payments expire. this program is already moving in the right direction. as the economy has improved,

nutrition assistance has been further focused on families in areas with the greatest need. in fact, the c.b.o. projects that without any changes to the program, the number of people eligible for nutrition assistance and the cost of nutrition programs will continue to fall as the economy improves. in this way, nutrition programs operate a lot like the farm safety net for agriculture producers. just as agriculture payments spiked during the 2012 drought, which was the worst since the 19 50's, the need for nutrition assistance similarly increased when our economy was struck with the worst recession since the 1930's. whewhen farmers are blessed wita strong harvest, we've designed agriculture and nutrition programs to adjust accordingly and be reduced. instead of trying to find ways to make people ineligible for nutrition assistance, we need to focus on real solutions that put people back to work. this farm bill is an opportunity

to do that. as an alumna of the efforts, my american innovation act, workforce training, bringing the tax reform in, bringing the corporate tax rate down and paid for, but if we continue to engage in the braingsmanship like we did in the last month, we'll never get to the core issue. i believe we have so many opportunities out there, when you look how we're situated right now with manufacturing, we need do things like the immigration imi bill to actually help the economy move forward. i think this farm bill is the first chance, the first opportunity sthoa that out of this chaos came something positive. it is a five-year farm bill. it has worked in the past. it brings the debt down by $24 billion. it's a bipartisan bill. let's show the people of america that we mean business about work across the aisle. madam president, i also would

like to say -- i see my colleague is here from tennessee. i just had about three minutes more on a very different topic, and that is the nomination of patty millett to the d.c. circuit court. in the past few weeks we have sommade some progress. patty millett would make an excellent addition to the court in the d.c. circuit, and i urge my colleagues to vote for cloture on to confirm her without delay. patty millett has extensive experience. she previously served 15 years as an attorney in the appellate staff of the u.s. department of justice civil division and then as an assistant to the solicitor general. she has argued 32 cases in the supreme court, 32. in addition to dozens of cases

in other appellate courts across the country. in addition to her work for the justice department and in private practice, she has also devoted substantial time to pro bono work. ms. millett clearly has an impressive professional background but even outside the legal world she volunteers as a literacy tutor. she was given the attorney general's distinguished service award for representing the interests of the united states before the supreme court. and the national association of attorney generals award for snarns to the states in preparation for their appearance before the supreme court. she is the kind of woman that we should have on the beth. it should be no surprise that the nonpartisan american bar association committee that reviews every federal jcialg nominee unanimously gave her its highest rating and over 100 leading lawyers and law professors wrote a letter in support of her nomination. this letter included seven

former solicitors general who served under democrat and republican presidents alike. so clearly there can be no question she has the experience and ability to sit on the federal beth. he -- on the federal bench. she has the support of the national women's law center, the women's bar association and the national congress of american indians. ms. millett is well-qualified and we should confirm her now. one justification -- and i don't think it is a good one -- but the only justification i've heard is not about her at all, madam president. it's about the d.c. circuit, some of my colleagues think that they should remain with three openings on their bench. i don't think this argument squares with the facts. currently three of the 11 seats on the d.c. circuit are empty, and according to the administrative office of the courts, seniors judges, judges who are partially retired,